Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
9207410 | Burns | 2005 | 6 Pages |
Abstract
In 2000 and 2002, the Royal Perth Hospital (RPH) Burn Unit, Western Australia, conducted two 'before and after' patient care audits comparing the effectiveness and cost of Silvazine⢠(silver sulphadiazine and chlorhexidine digluconate cream) and Acticoatâ¢, a new dressing product for in-patient treatment of early burn wounds. The main outcome variables were: burn wound cellulitis, antibiotic use and cost of treatment. Two patient care audits and a comparative sample were used. The two regimes audited were, 'standard treatment' of twice daily showers or washes with 4% chlorhexidine soap and Silvazine⢠cream as a topical dressing (2000, n = 51), compared with the 'new treatment' of daily showers of the burn wound with 4% chlorhexidine soap and the application of an Acticoat⢠dressing (2002, n = 19). In 2002, costs were also examined using a sample of matched pairs (n = 8) of current and previous patients. The main findings were: when using Acticoat⢠the incidence of infection and antibiotic use fell from 55% (28/51) and 57% (29/51) in 2000 to 10.5% (2/19) and 5.2% (1/19) in 2002. The total costs (excluding antibiotics, staffing and surgery) for those treated with Silvazine⢠were US$ 109,357 and those treated with Acticoat⢠were US$ 78,907, demonstrating a saving of US$ 30,450 with the new treatment. The average length of stay (LOS) in hospital was 17.25 days for the Silvazine⢠group and 12.5 days for the Acticoat⢠group-a difference of 4.75 days. These audits demonstrate that Acticoat⢠results in a reduced incidence of burn wound cellulitis, antibiotic use and overall cost compared to Silvazine⢠in the treatment of early burn wounds.
Related Topics
Health Sciences
Medicine and Dentistry
Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
Authors
J. Fong, F. Wood, B. Fowler,